[Paladin54]

I was about a 1/5 through typing up my notes and I realized that it would profit very little to repost them. Most of the things he said were so ordinary and, if he would have let me, would have been easy for me to defeat. However, they talked so much that I believe I spoke at all only 5 or 6 times. He would, for lack of a better word, monologue for a while, which would trigger several questions/objections in my head, and I would get the chance to answer only one of those, and thus, another monologue would start. I really do feel that this is a good use of my time, partly from his comments such as

-"I'm thrilled either way you come out of this, and I'll be more than happy to meet with you again until it stops being productive. Think of this as the beginning on a great journey of knowledge. I'm surprised that you are so dedicated to this and have much more knowledge of texts than I did when I was 17."

Apparently, I didn't turn him off as "yet another young, blind, 'zealot'".

Some of his thoughts:
-"(KJB) Greatest translation of all time, it stood he test of time, the dominant version" (he compared it to a really famous Mac computer from '87 or some year like that, called it "The greatest computer ever made,, but no one ever uses it anymore because it is archaic, they told me I would never need more than its 1 kilobyte of info, but we use several kilobytes for one program of thousands."
-"manuscripts outdated"
-"obvious errors in the text"
-"I know of no scholars who are KJVO Advocates, it is a layman thinking."

-"The Text Receptus is not THE Byzantine Text, but it is A Byzantine text of several"

-"Although God's revelation is perfect, man's view of that revelation is not perfect"

-"language has ambiguity"
-"Humans can't interpret or understand that revelation."
-"You have to study the Greek text just as much as you have to study it in English"

He then asked me what one of the big points was that had me converted to this thinking, and I explained that while it wasn't one of the main reasons now, it was THE fact that completely won me over to a KJB Only view was Isaish 14:12, where it uses Jesus's title "Morning Star" to describe Lucifer, and I told him that this blasphemy drove me deeper into study and I could never "reconcile" with the NIV because of that.

He responded -"You can't stay that one title can't be reused, it happens in the Bible, where do you find the difference in "Baal" in the OT Hebrew, and decide that it should be LORD and not Lord or lord."

We got started talking about I John 5:7, and my Bible teacher admitted that when I showed him all of the early church father quotations of the Comma, he was stumped. The response from the scholar?

"We all paraphrase. We don't know whether they were quoting scripture here or paraphrasing."

He also gave the argument that the Word is not bound to the words, so the words are not the inspired speech of God. I really, really wanted to pretty much quote Brandon from the other day on "Were early fundamentals KJVOnly?" However, I tried to be respectful and not interrupt.

"There can be many highly accurate Bibles, every one sparks controversy, and they are all the Word of God, just like the King James.

As follows are the points he made that I could not argue against (if I had the chance) simply because I am not a scholar.

-2 Tim 2:15 "'The Greek' says 'be diligent'"
-"No evidence that the Codexes are corrupt or mistaken"
-"Guilt by association is wrong, you can't say that a codex is wrong just because it came from somewhere bad."
-"'I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners (without 'to repentance' is correct) because it was added later by Christians to explain what Jesus meant.

In my head, I thought, "A non-heretic correcting Jesus?"